I think the idea of banning texting while driving is to prevent the “driving all over the road and generally not paying attention” before it happens.
I don’t understand why you think the fact that there are other possible distractions should be a reason not to address this additional one.
But I do agree about the constitutionality on the federal level.
I just mentioned the overruling of DOMA as an current example of states’ rights being upheld.
Of course, because the ruling brought joy to gays, many conservatives couldn’t care less about the constitutional arguments:
“”This activist decision must be appealed, and when appealed, I am confident it will be reversed,” said Mathew Staver, founder of the legal group Liberty Counsel, based in Orlando, Florida.”
I think the idea of banning texting while driving is to prevent the “driving all over the road and generally not paying attention” before it happens.
I don’t understand why you think the fact that there are other possible distractions should be a reason not to address this additional one.
But I do agree about the constitutionality on the federal level.
I just mentioned the overruling of DOMA as an current example of states’ rights being upheld.
Of course, because the ruling brought joy to gays, many conservatives couldn’t care less about the constitutional arguments:
“”This activist decision must be appealed, and when appealed, I am confident it will be reversed,” said Mathew Staver, founder of the legal group Liberty Counsel, based in Orlando, Florida.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6676CJ20100709?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69